The main legal point established is the requirement for authorities to adhere to prescribed procedures and principles for determining market value, establish prima facie materials for invoking Section 47-A, and have fair and rational reasons to believe that the value mentioned in the document is not truly set forth.

1. The pre-requisite for application of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is willful under valuation of property with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty. When the onus of proving the allegation that the true market value of the land has not been set forth/disclosed in the instrument is upon the authorities claiming so and when the Registering Authority is required to possess prima facie materials to form an opinion as to the market value not being truly set forth in the instrument (for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899) and in the absence of the same, whether the referring officer has got jurisdiction to invoke Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is the question raised in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. C.M.A.(MD)No.1019 of 2009 and C.M.A.(MD)No.1020 of 2009 have been filed by one and the same person, viz., the appellant/purchaser of property, challenging the order made by the first respondent in the appeal in Pa.Mu.No.53535/No.4/2005 and Pa.Mu.No.53539/No.4/2005, respectively, modifying the order dated 15.01.2005 in Ce.Pa.No.5 of 2003 Athoor, and Ce.Pa.No.6 of 2003 Athoor, respectively, on the file of the second respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The appellant/purchaser purchased an extent of 1.24 acres of land comprised in Survey No.1343/1 with borewell and right of common pathway for a consideration of Rs.37,200/-and submitted the instrument for registration (document No.503/2003, dated 07.07.2003). The stamp duty paid was Rs.4,500/-. But the stamp duty payable, as per the version of the respondents, was Rs.97,318/-. Therefore, the Registering Authority referred the document for fixing the market value under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on 25.07.2003.

3.1. On the same day, the appellant/purchaser purchased an extent of 0.86 acres of land comprised in Survey No.1344/1A for a consideration of Rs.35,800/-. This document No.504 of 2003 was affixed with a stamp of Rs.4,500/-, whereas, according to the version of the respondents, the stamp duty payable was Rs.67,987/-. As there was deficiency in the stamp duty payable, the Registering Authority, viz., the third respondent referred the document for fixing the market value, as contemplated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3.2. The land in question is located on Sithayankottai-Ayyampalayam Road and situated at a distance of 150 metre from the road. Adjoining the land, Sithayankottai Government Primary Centre is located and the adjoining lands were already sub-divided, plotted and sold as house sites. Several residential houses are found near the impugned land and basic amenities have been provided.

4. It was the claim of the respondents that the property should be sold only on square feet basis and on the basis of guideline value and if the value is fixed on square feet basis, the value of the land can be fixed at the rate of Rs.15/-per square feet. Keeping that in view, provisional notice in Form No.I of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, was issued, directing the appellant to remit the deficit stamp duty of Rs.92,818/-and Rs.62,987/- respectively, in respect of those two documents referred supra.

4.1. The appellant/purchaser sent representation, requesting the respondents, to fix the market value, as adopted in the instrument itself.

4.2. The second respondent confirmed the provisional value and challenging the same, the appellant/purchaser preferred the appeal before the Chief Revenue Control Officer -cum-Inspector General of Registration, viz., the first respondent, as contemplated under Section 47-A (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

4.3. The Inspector General of Registration called for further report from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. On getting a report from him, an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant. The first respondent disco